> At 04:11 AM 2/17/01 -0500, Matt Cramer wrote:
> Do that and spare the rest of the LBO
> >list in reading this pissing contest where you attack me by saying "hey
> >LBO, look what matt said once on some other list at some other time". I
> >seriously doubt anyone gives a damn.
>
> but i'm not doing that am i? i'm not holding you up for ridicule because
> people here don't know you're perfectly willing to redbait.
That's the way it looks from where I'm sitting (attempts to generate ridicule).
> you have made
> your hostility to left ideas apparent from the get go -- and, in fact, i
> defended your butt on list and off list. redbaiting is part of the lexicon
> of the ordinary average american -- to denouce something (sans any real
> argument) simply by associating it with the "left" with socialism or with
> communism. when someone registers antipathy to leftwing ideas, as you did
> from the start, then they can pretty much bet that you use the lexicon with
> the facility that most americans do. so, i doubt anyone here had to pop a
> nitro to keep from having a heart attack. in fact, i doubt anyone but
> reese and maybe carrol are reading!
Well that wasn't what the thread was about. There was nothing in there about denouncing the left. The thread was about the left in the media. All I did was point out that it was there. Galt was going on about how we have an illegitimate president who lost the popular vote and that the right controlled media isn't covering this. So I pointed out that his charges were horseshit, particularly the notion that losing the pop vote and winning the EC results in an illegitimate president is not a fact, but a leftist view. I never said anything about whether popular votes are good or bad.
> i called you on being disingenuous -- by pretending to be a relativist
> about it all -- where the left is just as culpable as the right,
> yadda. you objected to my characterization of you as redbaiting
> elsewhere. since you objected, i pointed out exactly how you have used a
> common rhetorical tactic --redbaiting as substitute for argument. so, i
> showed you what it is. it may well be that you don't understand. i don't
> know.
It wasn't redbaiting until it came under the knife of your ability to edit posts, remove context, and change meaning. *THAT* is disengenuous in itself. It is even worse that to prove I'm hostile to the left on LBO, you had to creatively edit something of mine from a *DIFFERENT LIST*.
Don't you see the problem with the fact that the only "proof" you have of my hostility to the left on LBO is a post I made to dc-stuff, and even then you had to take it out of context and edit it in such a fashion as to change the meaning?
> and by the way, i did flame you at dc-stuff when i responded to that
> thread. you never replied-- i assumed you were busy. but that's NOT why i
> bring it up here.
I never saw a reply from you to any of my posts in that thread (there were only 3 or 4, then I dropped it with Galt because he was arguing in circles).
> again, there's no need to feel as if i've somehow ratted you out. you
> revealed your sympathies to libertarian and conservative ideas and
> antipathy to lefty/liberal/dem ideas the first day you joined the
> list. identifying as a conservative and libertarian pretty much makes you
> hostile to left analyses of social problems. --here i'm not really talking
> about politics, but about how we go about analyzing social problems.
I certainly didn't identify as a conservative. Libertarian (small l) yes.
It is interesting that you think the left feels a different viewpoint about anything is automatically hostile.
> my bringing you up in response to Reese, finally, was trying to get him to
> see that the questions aren't just benign questions. they are undergirded
> by assumptions about the left that both of you have exhibited here. they
> are, typically, ignorant assumptions. they are more so, since you've both
> been subscribed to this list for quite sometime. you've chilled out on
> them, Reese hasn't. i was trying to get him to see that if he can see you
> making pisspoor assumptions in your posts in the past, then he should see
> himself doing the same. it was a form of illustration, using
> shorthand. it wasn't meant to flame you since i read you as proud of your
> political positions, not ashamed. so, when i've called you conservative,
> you've basically said, "yes, ma'am, that i am".
The issue is one of etiquette. If you want to flame Reese and use me as an example, fine, but you better be prepared to justify it with a citation, because the second you bring me into it I'm gonna call your bluff. I called it this time and all I get is "oh I didn't mean this thread" (silly me for thinking that if you mention in me in a thread I've posted to it will have something to do with what I wrote in that thread), I meant this other thread". When I ask "what other thread?", you say "this stuff from dc-stuff" (which you creatively edit to show I'm a "redbaiter"). That's poor etiquette no matter how you slice it.
Matt
-- Matt Cramer <cramer at voicenet.com> http://www.voicenet.com/~cramer/ The technology that extends our senses is increasingly difficult to distinguish from the technology that creates our senses.
-Richard Thieme